"A Galileo could no more be elected president of the United States than he could be elected Pope of Rome. Both high posts are reserved for men favored by God with an extraordinary genius for swathing the bitter facts of life in bandages of self-illusion." ~ H.L. Mencken

Rejoinder on Evil Minarchism

John deLaubenfels responds to my previous column on minarchists being “the enemy.” His response is a case in point. Even though it is surely not his intent, his “quick response” directly supports the thesis of my original column. This is also true with most of the e-mails and comments I have seen by those disagreeing with me. This rejoinder is not meant as a personal reply to Mr. deLaubenfels or any other commentator, but rather a once-and-for-all response to the numerous commentators wishing to rebut my claim that minarchists are enemies of liberty.

What I find striking about the rebuttals and arguments offered in response to my column is that each and every one of these individuals seems to have a different view of what their “minimal” government is supposed to do. Whereas anarchists can want different things and even aim to realize different kinds of societies, they have that luxury simply because they – as free and equal individuals – must rely completely on voluntary means to establish whatever. There is no government and therefore no structured, monopolized power to wield in the service of one’s own ideals (and likely to the detriment of everybody else). Whatever any anarchist wants will have to be done voluntarily, and anarchists will have to get together and cooperate in the same voluntary manner if they wish to form any kind of large society. And they need possession of property on which to settle in order to do so.

This is not the case for minarchists, who by definition rely on government to provide monopolized services based on force. Judging from the aforementioned comments, even minarchists do not agree on what exact powers their government should be granted. How, then, is this government not to be considered oppressive? How is any society based on (minimalist) government free, when even minarchists themselves cannot agree on what are the functions and services of government and what are the rights of people living under its reign?

Minarchists simply don’t have the luxury of wanting different things if they want their view of government to be taken seriously. In fact, it is easy to show that minarchists themselves differ in degree regarding the size and scope of the state, just like statist socialists do. The difference between the two “camps,” as I mentioned in the original column, is one of degree. Some want it smaller and others want it bigger, but what unites them is that they all want it. What they are bickering about is that they want to go in different directions; those who want it small want it much smaller, and those who want it big want it much bigger. But if you want it – for whatever reason, “necessary evil” or otherwise – you are still a proponent of the state.

As an anarchist, it is comical to observe these statists quarreling simply because they have such different views of what is. Those who want it small say it is already at (or close to) the goal of those wanting it big, and that’s why it doesn’t work and that’s why it is oppressive. And those who want it big say it is already at (or close to) the goal of those wanting it small, and that’s why it doesn’t work and that’s why society is oppressive. This makes it obvious that it is a matter of degree, and that these statists’ goals are relative to their views of what is – not an absolute and measurable goal. It is all about degree.

Anarchists are different. We can without any doubt say that we are nowhere close to what we want, no matter how big it is; when one is anti-government on principle, it doesn’t really matter if government is really big or really small or anywhere in-between. Of course, a small government would grant us more liberties and freedoms than a big government. But note the words: it would grant us these liberties – government still keeps the right to use force against us if we misbehave or the leaders of the state happen to change their minds.

One of my arguments in the original column stated that minarchists are “nothing but gutless wimps; they are statist socialists with a fetish for smaller government.” Many were offended by this statement, and I can see why – I too would have been offended had I been a small-government proponent. But it needs to be read in its proper context, and this is the reliance on government’s grandeur (which is what that whole paragraph is about). I realize not all minarchists would take the easy way out when involved in ideological disputes with their bigger-government statist siblings, but perhaps they should. When pushed hard by bigger-than-minimal statists, the minarchist really has only two responses: either use the government trump card or spend a lot of time in a long and messy chain of arguments about how the market may be able to provide a solution.

The government trump card is no doubt the easy way out, and it is easy because fellow statists would have no problem understanding that government would properly take care of this matter (“properly” need not be defined in statist discourse). The other response ultimately means losing the debate. Either you lose the audience (and perhaps your adversary) in trying to describe the free, bottom-up, decentralized market process (they will no doubt fail to understand this or assume your seemingly complex solution is wrong), or you expose yourself to the big-government statist using the government trump card. Because if the market can take care of these seemingly very complex things, why can’t the market take care of the rest too? Obviously, the statist reasons, government is needed – but then why not rely on government to provide a few more important things in life to solve a few more problems?

The anarchist, while possibly having a hard time arguing for any and all kinds of freedom in this statist world, takes the principled stand against force, aggression, and power: nobody, with or without badges or ballots, has the right to aggress on any other. There is no imaginary “guarantee” for whatever kind of societal structure we would personally prefer; we realize this and call bullshit to such ridiculous claims. Also, we do not discriminate – government is evil no matter what size it is or what shape it has, and therefore we oppose all governments and all government-type action. We are all for voluntary.

This does not mean we cannot cooperate on certain issues with those who agree with us on those specific issues. For some reason, many seem to have interpreted my column as saying that all minarchists, like the rest of the statist pack, should be shot (which, by the way, would be a great example of government-type action). On the contrary, anarchism is about living and letting live. I would be happy to cooperate and coordinate campaigns with anyone who agrees with me; but a long-lasting, all-encompassing alliance with statists is so much more than a bad idea. It is counter-productive in every sense of the word, regardless of whether the alliance would be with small-government statists (who would grant us “more” freedoms) or with big-government statists (whose state would suffer from its own weight to such a degree that it would be quite impotent).

The problem is not that I, as an anarchist, disagree with minarchists on certain issues; I disagree with many people, but can still accept them and perhaps even enjoy their company. This is, after all, what anarchism is about: no matter our differences, we can live together and respect each other. And if we dislike each other, we go separate ways.

The real problem is that every minarchist by definition wants to (at some point) force their ideals down my throat and replace the chains I am in for their own chains. Like any statist, the minarchist finds his chains much better and more comfortable than any other chains. But to any anarchist, they are still chains.

Comments

Um, Per, you seem to be arguing a point that nobody disputes: that minarchists are statists. Yeah, we get that.

My point about taking minarchists and other statists out and shooting them, is not that this should be done. It was a rhetorical device. If you agree that it is impractical and immoral to shoot statists, then there is only one other alternative, and that is finding some way to live with them or near them. Go up to your statist neighbor and tell him you think he is your enemy. See where it gets you.

"The real problem is that every minarchist by definition wants to (at some point) force their ideals down my throat..."

Yes, that is the real problem. Having turned all statists into enemies, you've now enlarged your problem, because you have given up all areas of commonality which are needed to dissuade him from imposing on you, leaving only armed response or submission as your alternatives. In fact, you even have done that with statists not inclined to impose on others, which is madness.

Your neighbors may be statists, but they are also victims of the state. Let's find a way to live with them, not shoot them, which is what you usually have to do with enemies.

"...but a long-lasting, all-encompassing alliance with statists is so much more than a bad idea."

I didn't see anyone arguing for that. Anyway it is a collectivist notion. We treat people as individuals, not as interchangable members of some fuzzy class.

Eh, no. Just as I am not going to make common cause with white supremacists to overthrow the State and allow them to establish their own little local authoritarian institutions, I'm not interested in working with defenders of the state to establish their own little jurisdictions. Sorry. Statists, are, in fact and principle, opponents who would suppress any Anarchist movement given the chance because it directly challenges their authority.

To repeat the point, "shooting statists" is a misnomer. Statists, like other opponents of liberty must be confronted. Claiming that this implies that they should be "shot", is faulty logic, as has already been stated, aggression and murder are not acceptable if you identify as an Anarchist. No one, anywhere has suggested we shoot our opponents.

You contradict yourself with your write:

"Your neighbors may be statists, but they are also victims of the state. Let's find a way to live with them, not shoot them, which is what you usually have to do with enemies."

and

"In fact, you even have done that with statists not inclined to impose on others, which is madness."

Statists are authoritarian. Supporters of governments and defenders of authority, by definition, are inclined to and often, actively seek to impose their vision on others.

"Um, Per, you seem to be arguing a point that nobody disputes: that minarchists are statists. Yeah, we get that."

Via deLaubenfels' column: "It is nothing short of ridiculous to try to dismiss all MLs as statists in disguise, as Mr. Bylund does."

"Go up to your statist neighbor and tell him you think he is your enemy. See where it gets you."

You assume that by properly identifying an aggressor as an enemy, you can't be tactful in your dealings with that person. Via the column: "no matter our differences, we can live together and respect each other."

"Let's find a way to live with them, not shoot them, which is what you usually have to do with enemies."

...what? I've had enemies, but I've never had to discharge a firearm. Via the column: "I disagree with many people, but can still accept them and perhaps even enjoy their company."

"We treat people as individuals, not as interchangable members of some fuzzy class."

I agree. I only wish minarchists did, as well. To them, I'm not an individual human being with a right to defend myself, but rather a source of revenue to fund their limited State, by which they aggress against me and my property.

"You assume that by properly identifying an aggressor as an enemy, you can't be tactful in your dealings with that person."

Tact? I am not talking about buying a gallon of milk from an Obama supporter. Almost anyone can manage that.

I am saying that if you classify everyone other than anarchists as an enemy, rather than mistaken, or hoodwinked, or propagandized (for example), you naturally will cut off any but the most trivial possible relationship with him, including the notion of persuasion.

"Respect each other"? The original column was entitled, "Why Minarchists Are The Enemy". Strange way of showing respect.

The other problem with making 98% of the population your "enemy" is that it trivializes the notion of "enemy". It makes it life easy for those who truly are enemies (most powerful people in Washington DC, for example). No, my neighbor is not another Dick Cheney!

I simply reject the notion that all statists want to oppress and control everyone. They certainly want themselves and their associates and neighbors, everyone in their immediate vicinity, to be oppressed and controlled. That does not imply they care about someone in another town or state - or that they couldn't be convinced not to care in return for getting their own preferred variety of statism locally. These people are not enemies. They are our natural allies, and we will need their help if we are ever to have the chance to establish free states or communities for ourselves.

None of us were born anarchists. Could I call myself a "borned again" anarchist -- like religionists I remember?

It took what it took to get me where I am. I'm 74. I didn't ask for a state ("public school") education, but that's what I got. I didn't ask to be enslaved ("drafted") by state goons and trained to murder, but that's how it worked out.

Afterward I gleefully (and grateful to the GI Bill) accepted a state "higher" education and became a state teacher. To cop another religionist phrase, I've since "repented" of all that -- but it didn't happen overnight.

In 1964 -- not yet 30 -- I was an avid Barry Goldwater enthusiast, just as the young Ron Paul supporters are of him today. I became so disgruntled with the LBJ crowd and disillusioned with the "white supremacist" types in the political arena I've never registered or voted since. It was the last year for poll tax in Texas.

In 1973 Harry Browne wrote "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World". Although old Harry was a ministatist (at least he spelled Libertarian with upper case "L" and ran for "president" -- how mini is that???), he led me on to the path of freedom and sovereignty. Harry taught me to think through ideas previously too risky for me to broach -- just like Ron Paul is providing inspiration for future STR posters today (hopefully including at least two of my seven children).

Per, you write good stuff. Don't let anybody slow you down. You are an inspiration to me and many others. But some of your "gentle detractors" also have a message. Listen and sort. Regards,

Samarami, that is a great, great comment. You are absolutely right that -- since we all were born into a Statist society and have been immersed in Statist propaganda from Day One, that seeing the truth and moving towards abolitionism is a PROCESS, a path, a journey of discovery and growth. Minarchists are moving in the right direction, and some will continue on to the abolitionist view and some won't. We need to be firm about the importance of abolishing ALL FORMS AND TYPES of initiated, non-defensive coercion (or aggression) while encouraging minarchists to continue their journey. Alliances with minarchists can definitely help the cause of freedom as long as we remain clear and firm on the importance of the endpoint: abolishing all non-defensive coercion, no matter how the coercion is dressed up or what clever names and rationales might be used for it.

I particularly liked your last paragraph, Sam, which shows a warm connection to others regardless of whether they think exactly as you do, and an appreciation of the positive elements in someone's argument even if you disagree with it. Not every argument HAS positive elements -- we can all think of many examples, I'm sure -- but you are right that Per's strong "anarchist only" viewpoint is useful -- it hammers home the importance of eliminating all structures that initiate coercion -- even if you personally believe, as I do, that minarchism is often a way-station on the road to abolitionism and that minarchists such as Paul and Browne do useful and sometimes powerful work for liberty.

There's no principled difference between anarchism and minarchism, it's just a matter of semantics!

Anarchists too think that it's right to use force in response to an attack. The reasonable way to do this is with everyones equality under the law, public trials, proportional punishments and so on along the principles of justice which have evolved over thousands of years. If you call this a "state" or if you call it something else, doesn't change what it is. I don't want a "state" per se, but I want a justice system which protects negative rights, and they tend to be called "state".

Any "state" activity which hurts someones negative rights is not minarchism, it's socialism.

What's important to me is how force is used, not how organisations are labeled.

Björn, I think you're probably correct insofar as "labels" are concerned. We can all get hopelessly tangled up in labels and fall short of nailing issues. If we can untangle the obfuscation we might discover none of us on this site are truly that far apart in what we believe -- what we'd like to see result from our writing and our preaching and our shouting. John Hasnas had a treatise on "The Obviousness of Anarchism" some years back that helps sort out the thinking:

On the 2nd page (this link is to a pdf of one chapter of his book "Anarchism/Minarchism" so this might be page #112) he states:

"...I am presenting an argument for anarchy in the true sense of the term; that is, a society without government, not a society without governance. There is no such thing as a society without governance. A society with no mechanism for bringing order to human existence is oxymoronic; it is not “society” at all.

"One way to bring order to society is to invest some people with the exclusive
power to create and coercively enforce rules which all members of society must
follow; that is, to create a government. Another way to bring order to society is to allow people to follow rules that spontaneously evolve through human interaction with no guiding intelligence and may be enforced by diverse agencies. This chapter presents an argument for the latter approach; that is, for a spontaneously ordered rather than a centrally planned society..."

******

In our milieu it stretches the imagination of the staunchest of us anarchists to consider a truly free marketplace that generates agencies for conciliation and arbitration and title solidarity. "Have gun, will travel" sorts of justice (few of you are old enough to remember that early TV show, and I don't remember the name of the show or the actors). We've had statism so subtly and assiduously pressed upon us over such long periods of time we have difficulty seeing around the trees to the woods.

First of all, statists are not "victims of the state" anymore than proponents of slavery are victims of slavery.

Second, when it comes to minarchists, a couple of questions arise.
First question is: why are we anarchists? Or, why do we think statism and those supporting it are immoral?
Second question: how does this apply to minarchists, if at all?

My answers would be these:
First question: We abhor coercion, and people or institutions using (threat of) violence to shove their will down our throats and rob us for the funds to finance that which to wish to shove down our throats.
Second question: Do minarchists want to shove their will down our throats and have us robbed to fund that which they want to shove down our throats? Yes, they do. They have a few limited functions for government which are monopolies, which means they use violence against those trying to compete with it, and which rob all of us for the funds with which to finance these violent monopolies.

As Per said, the difference between minarchists is in degrees, not principles. Minarchists still support the very thing about it that anarchists hate about it in the first place. Anarchists do not hate the state for its size; we hate it for their violence, the violence which, albeit on a smaller scale, minarchists *still* support for principles (monopolies) they *still* support.

The question we must ask ourselves is this: "Knowing we would never be willing to use the force of a state to impose our will on minarchists, are minarchists willing to pay us the same courtesy, or do they want the state to still point their guns at us, rob us, and accept their monopolies including all the consequences it brings?

If the answer is that minarchists still support violence against us, then they are our enemy, or our principles mean NOTHING. As minarchists, they have no excuse. They know better, yet still support violence.

Personally, i've lost all patience with minarchists when, in dealing with them through debate, their incredible intellectual dishonesty became obvious to me. One person went so far as to say that "anarchism" was responsible for people being beheaded after the Mubarak regime fell, and to use Ayn Rand's arguments for minarchism before saying it is better not to be "rabidly rational", when we used Ayn Rand's beloved reason to prove him wrong. Minarchists, like other statists, are no more than 'moderate' believers of the state religion.

Well said Cannon. You also summed up my frustration well with “Personally, I've lost all patience with minarchists when, in dealing with them through debate, their incredible intellectual dishonesty became obvious to me.” Yet shooting them never entered my mind.
I think the pivotal term here causing the central conflict in this discussion has been "enemy". I agree 100% with Sam and Glen as to how we have all been there, done that and should continue to provide gentle persuasion as a sound tactic. I’ve had a hard time getting my head around Paul’s idea that since Per labeled ministatists the enemy, that we must therefore shoot them. I’ve always sought to love my enemy right up to the point they seriously threaten me, but that’s another subject. However, I do think that Per made a good point using this term when it comes to the end-game.

When the US Imperial State goes bankrupt and our society is flailing about searching for order and security there will be a debate as to how we should reorganize society. Most people will respond just as they have been trained to do: promote an election to choose representatives to form a reincarnated state to replace the one that just failed (democracy to the rescue - sound familiar). Anarchists will argue that we do not need a state to enslave us all and to give liberty a real chance this time. Which side of this debate will the ministatists take? Will they side with the statists pointing their guns at the crazy anarchists or will they stand up for the non-aggression principle and let individuals choose for themselves how they wish to be governed? If they are consistent with how they now believe, it appears obvious that ministatists will promote the creation of a state, most likely trying to start over with the failed US Constitution, but this time, “we” will really, really follow it, blah, blah, blah… and shoot anarchists in the back. In this sense, it will be ministatists who see anarchists as the enemy and will do the shooting. Thus we have been forewarned.

Suppose you understand that the actions needed to implement a minarchy are morally indefensible, yet believe that anarchy will lead to far greater violations of rights. Suppose that while refusing to perform any of the rights violating actions necessary to sustain a minarchy one still preferred to live under a minarchy than under anarchy?